Idea about Test::Unit

[gabriele renzi]

Hi gurus and nubys,

I just realized that it is a common idiom to put a TestCase in a single
file, but this convention could be made easier to use.

IMO it would be nice to have

require 'test/unit'
def test_foo
end

instead of
require test/unit
class TC_FooBar < Test::Unit::TestCase
def test_foo
..
end
end

not a big deal, I know

I think it should be easy to do this, by mixing the code from the file
in a custom object, or building a whole new TestCase subclass
dynamically. #setup and #teardown methods should still work fine, I
think. The name for the TestCase could be taken from the filename,
becoming a little more DRYish.

This is a departure from the xUnit heritage, but I think that taking
advantage of ruby's features and make Test::Unit simpler to use by
"evolving" it a little bit was already planned. Is this a bad idea?

 

[Trans]

I've gotten tired of this verbosity myself and have started playing
with:

require 'quicktest'

test :foo {
...
}

T.

 

[gabriele renzi]

Christian Neukirchen ha scritto:

Truly amazing, I wrote *exactly* the same thing for myself. Except
mine is called "quiktest" and the test name is optional (you need to
use parens or do...end in above, btw).

quicktest seem to be a common name[1]
IIRC something like this was already planned from Nathaniel Talbott, but
I think that if you're writing a single test class per file even the
test{} could be avoided.




[1] I wrote a "quicktest" thing too, but it was different, wrapping
sparse assertions in a test case to allow testing quick scripts like this:

def foo(x,y)
..
end
assert_equal something, foo(2,3)

 

[gabriele renzi]

Christian Neukirchen ha scritto:

[1] I wrote a "quicktest" thing too, but it was different, wrapping
sparse assertions in a test case to allow testing quick scripts like
this:

def foo(x,y)
..
end
assert_equal something, foo(2,3)

Wrapping them with test{} doesn't hurt and you can reuse the file.

sure, the reason I wrote this was to *quickly* test scripts, i.e. when
answering messages in ruby-talk on how to do something. I would'nt
advocate this to be actually used for anything

 

[Trans]

Truly amazing, I wrote *exactly* the same thing for myself. Except
mine is called "quiktest" and the test name is optional (you need to
use parens or do...end in above, btw).


require 'test/unit'

$TGEN = "000000"

def test(name=nil, &block)
@@test ||= Class.new(Test::Unit::TestCase)
@@test.__send__define_method, "test_#{name.to_s || $TGEN.succ!}", &block)
end

Test::Unit.run = !$DEBUG

Thanks for this, I had been "playing" and hadn't yet coded it. So yours
came in very handy . It has two bugs though. 1) The #to_s on name
must go. And 2) using the -d option causes Test::Unit to alos dump it's
debug info too. Not good (It'd be nice if we had some sort of debug
level system, perhaps based on module nesting levels.)

Thanks again,
T.

 

[Trans]

You're right, the code doesn't work at all. It was just a quick
hack, and I must have kept the wrong version.

Feel free to take it, however, and make something useful.

As so I have. It will be in the next release of Mega Modules, fully
credited to you of course.

Thanks,
T.